MovieChat Forums > Bugs (1995) Discussion > What caused Bugs to finish?

What caused Bugs to finish?

posted 18 years ago by Severus_Snape666
18 replies | jump to latest

What is it about the BBC? They seem to hate successfuly shows and seem to endevour to get them taken off!!
Having given us three series of a brilliant show that pulled in a huge amount of viewers, they commissioned a fourth series. Now, aside from the evil Ed replacement, the show was still good. The new storylines and dynamics worked successfully, it was still classically Bugs in that way that no other show has really been able to achieve (it was daft, fun, suspenseful and gripping; you loved the characters even when they were being complete idiots).
So, the BBC decide to take action. Their first idea was to put it on at a stupid time. I think it was originally aired 7pm at the beginning of series four, whereas every other series had aired on the primetime BBC 1 8:10pm slot, but that didn't work. Next, they changed the time to six, even more ridiculous and resulting in avid fans such as myself sitting in front of the TV eating dinner so we didn't miss it. Then they decided to take it off for a week due to, as I vaguely remember, either a bomb scare or a bomb attack somewhere, deciding it was too delicate a subject to approach that week. But their plan to make people think the series had finished didn't work so they thought up a new scheme. Not show the last three episodes for a year. And then when it came back on a year later, advertise it like its a new series. Just to get the fans hopes up (not to mention showing that computer face thing of Zephyrs so fans think Cyberax is back...*scowls*).
This isn't the only programnme that has suffered the BBC treatment. The X-Files got shifted to a graveyard slot and many programmes suffer form their times being switched around for no sensible reason. If anything killed Bugs, it was the BBc's stupidity.
Ok, that's my rant over. I feel better now.
Clare

[–] LiamABC 18 years ago

I don't know about all of that - personally I'm not that thrilled about series four. "The Two Becketts" and "Hell And High Water" are certainly up to standard, but most of the rest just don't quite do it. Maybe it is just Craig McLachlan, I don't know.

What really annoyed me more than anything else was the unresolved cliffhanger! I hate it when they do that!

All I can say is, if I hadn't seen the complete box-set for a mere £40, I would never have got series 4 - and maybe not even series 3. Series 3 is all right, but they did start to go off on a tangent a bit. I mean, "Renegades" was just an excuse to bring back the Cyberax threat - after Beckett supposedly destroyed the whole thing at the end of season 2 (that two-parter with Jean-Daniel being the high point of the series for me). Where did these four discs suddenly come from? This only hit home to me when I was watching it on the DVD, I ought to add!

[–] Severus_Snape666 18 years ago

Didn't Beckett just destroy the power lines once Cyberax was in? Surely if that happened, it wouldn't wipe out Cyberax but disable it. Then the powers that be could sweep in and pick up the pieces o Cyberax and store it on some discs in some daft places for Roland to go and collect. My favourite episode is still Renegades. There's just so much about that episode that I love. It's completely daft but commpletely brilliant atthe same time. Though Bureau of Weapons and A Cage For Satan come close second.
I hated the end of series 4 cliffhanger too. It's so unsatisfying!! I read somewhere that they did that hoping the BBC would recommission it in order to tie up the end...
I was dicussing with some friends the other day, don't you think that they should have killed Ed off? They could have had him die at the end of Sacrifice to Science instead of Terry. If Ed died because Beckett wasn't quick enough, it would have given a much stronger storylie for why Ros was so upset with Beckett. That she was so distraught because some old flame who she really didn't seem too fond of anyway died just didn't work for me. And it meant that we wouldn't have had a piece of wood being added to the Bugs team.
A while back I e-mailed one of the writer's of the last episode of Bugs (Terry Borst) and asked him who kidnapped Ros and Beckett. He wouldn't tell me or give me any information on what they had thought could happen because he said that occasionally there were discussions about doing another episode!! I don't believe that though, I think he was fobbing me off because he didn't want to tell me...LOL! Of course, the most unsatisfying thing is, maybe they just wrote that without giving too much thought as to who was kidnapping them. People wanted to believe it was Jean-Daniel, but there are several reasons why it didn't seem like it could be him (ie. since when did J-D start called Beckett 'Nick'?).
Clare

[–] LiamABC 18 years ago

"Didn't Beckett just destroy the power lines once Cyberax was in?"

Right on. But given Jean-Daniel's threats of a similar nature - "only one house rule - you do everything I say, or I switch you off for good. We call this 'dying'!" - it does sound like it would be rather more permanent.

"I was dicussing with some friends the other day, don't you think that they should have killed Ed off? They could have had him die at the end of Sacrifice to Science instead of Terry."

Actually, Craig McLachlan was making noises about leaving the series at the start of season THREE - and Blaze Of Glory/The Revenge Effect was written with a view to killing him off (several places in the script where that could have happened!). He changed his mind, however, of course, and stayed till the end of series 3.

"who kidnapped Ros and Beckett. People wanted to believe it was Jean-Daniel, but there are several reasons why it didn't seem like it could be him (ie. since when did J-D start called Beckett 'Nick'?)."

Personally, the only time I gave that any serious thought was the first time I saw it - I figured it was something to do with his ex-wife Amanda. Although I don't know about how the "I thought you were dead" thing would work.

Hang on - another thought just come to me - could it have been Roland Blatty, maybe?

[–] robugs 18 years ago

I agree that killing Ed would have given greater emotional truth to the Beckett and Ros storyline of Season Four, and would have meant more to viewers. However, Ed is a part of what makes 'BUGS', 'BUGS' - it would be like 'The Avengers' with no Steed!
Personally I think Steven Houghton did the best job he could under the circumstances; it's almost impossible to replace a much-loved character with another actor. I think it would have worked better if Ed had been urgently called away and Houghton could have played a new character (for the sake of differentiation we'll call him Ted). Ted looked, spoke and reacted differently to Ed, so it would make sense for him to be a different character.
Your thoughts on 'Chauffeur Man' are interesting. I suppose it could be a woman, but the credits show it was a male actor. It seems unlikely to be Amanda as, though she hated Beckett, she was an ordinary citizen trying to be a good news reporter and not really gangster material. Similarly it just couldn't be Blatty as we definitely saw him die in 'Renegades' (I love that bit where Beckett looks like he's about to shoot Roland with the shotgun and instead destroys the transmitter!) - in fact, in 'Absent Friends' at Ros' memorial service we see a wall of plaques dedicated to dead agents, and Roland's name is on one. No, I feel pretty certain it's supposed to be JD. In a way it's great they left it vague as it has certainly fueled debates and that's what we need for the series' comeback: lots of interest!
Stephen Gallagher (who wasn't involved in Season Four, more's the pity), reckons that the writers probably hadn't decided for sure who the 'Chauffeur Man' was, but admits he doesn't know for sure. I reckon they'd have had plenty of ideas...

[–] LiamABC 18 years ago

I guess - of course, considering the number of villains in the earlier series who (at least seemingly) were killed, it could be one of any number from there.

[–] Severus_Snape666 18 years ago

Where is the 'chauffeur man' mentioned in the credits? I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I checked through them to see if there was any mention of who it was and there wasn't. Also, did you notice that there are two people in the front of the car? There's Mr 'Why Nick...' and the driver. Plus Stefano in the back, who is obviosuly involved with whoever is the mastermind behind the plan.
I still like to think it was J-D. It's just that 'Nick' reference which niggles at me. Jean-Daniel never called him Nick. And with the suggestion of Roland Blatty, as far as I can remember, Roland always called him Beckett as well.
Clare

[–] Severus_Snape666 18 years ago

...and re. Ed. Yes, Ed was part of what made Bugs Bugs, but for many people that stopped when series 4 started. It would have changed the series, yes, without Ed, but it would have created a new dynamic within the team, not to mention if Steven Houghton or someone else had come in as a new character, there could have been the oppurtunity for a bit more friction within Bureau 2, as the team struggled to come to terms with someone they couldn't help but look at as Ed's replacement.
I have always wondered, where in Blaze of Glory/ The Revenge Effect was Ed supposed to die? At the end of Blaze of Glory , creating an altogether more poignant 'Revenge Effect' for the second episode, where a grieving Ros and Beckett would fight to avenge the death of their friend? Or at the point at the end of The Revenge Effect, where Ed was falling off the side of the building and Beckett and Ros rescued him? In that case, maybe when Ros tried to shoot out one of the tyres on the Ferrari, it wasn't supposed to be an accident...
Any ideas?
Clare

[–] LiamABC 18 years ago

Good question - there's plenty of places. My guess is at the end of Blaze Of Glory - and then have Beckett get kidnapped in The Revenge Effect. I don't know for sure, though - all I've got to go on is the Stephen Gallagher interview from the box set.

[–] Severus_Snape666 18 years ago

*sigh* I haven't seen that. I bought all the series seperately before the boxset came out. Is it interesting?
Clare

[–] LiamABC 18 years ago

Well, the only thing extra is the Stephen Gallagher interview - but yes, it is quite interesting.

I think I already said, didn't I - I'd only really been bothered about the first two series, but as they were charging £25 a series, and the box set was a mere £40 - well, with my loyalty reward points in Silverscreen, just £30 - I didn't really need to do any thinking!

I'll have to have another watch of the interview, see what else there is that's worth mentioning on here.

[–] robugs 18 years ago

Firstly, I got the name of the 'Chauffeur Man' from the end credits - just next to the Stefano credit is 'Agent: Peter Broome'. I always took this to mean the guy in the front of the limo as he does have some lines to say, so he should have a screen credit (I think). I suppose it could have been one of the Hive agents, but as I say, I always assumed it was the kidnapper. This doesn't mean it wasn't JD as they wouldn't have got Gareth Marks in just for a few lines, and with the uncertainty over a Season Five. That's my theory, anyway!

I have also wondered about when Ed was supposed to die. It could have been at any one of several points in the two episodes, or perhaps even a scene that was written, but not used when they knew McLachlan was staying on. (Personally I think it would have been at the end of part II - then the end of part I would have had more resonance, because people would have been thinking he was leaving, so this must be it, only for him to carry on into the next episode (a bit like Spock's 'death' at the beginning of Star Trek II).

I would recommend the 'BUGS complete set' as the Gallagher interview does give some interesting points (it's about 45 mins long, though only half of it is about 'BUGS'). I don't usually do this, but I forked out for the set on top of the individual ones, partly because I wanted two copies in case one broke and partly because there is so little merchandise for the series.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sexy_daz1980 10 years ago

the bomb was in omagh

[–] gregforttmags 10 years ago

The show could not sustain itself after the departure of Stephen Gallagher and the miscasting of Steven Houghton (in addition to generally weaker stories and even lower production values).

[–] robugs 10 years ago

Yes, it's sad that the final season didn't live up to the rest, but I'm still glad they made it as it's more episodes to watch, and some aren't bad - I particularly like 'Sacrifice To Science' and 'Money Spiders.'

Rob

[–] gregforttmags 9 years ago

You had more stories to watch, but it was still pretty hard to watch the diminishing returns and cheaper production values from Bugs with more boring and recycled story lines, and a cliff hanger never to be resolved - in some ways it felt worse than the last set of episodes of ITV's Primeval that featured Dr. Bashir as a corporate villain and a couple of new characters that just couldn't replace the old ones (at least with Primeval on the wane we had production values that remained solid, we saw a T-Rex, and the final open ended ending was a less painful closure).

[–] Prismark10 10 years ago

It was a decline in quality especially when Craig MacLachlan left.

Its that man again!!

[–] AGood 8 years ago

I loved series 1-3, but I hated Series 4 and stopped watching it.

The main two things were Craig leaving as people say.

But the other thing, Season 4 had this new camera style to try and make it seem hip, but that made things infuriating.

It was seemingly a frantic handcam style (think of the raid scene on Johnny Depps Public Enemy to get an idea of what I mean).

They did that throughout the eps to make it seem action packed. But it was dreadful off putting and nausea inducing.

Plus Craig was by far the best and fun character in the show. Its like having Star Trek with no Captain Spock.